Archive | November, 2016
Snowden to go to Berlin?
The Federal court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that the government must bring US whistleblower Edward Snowden to Berlin to answer parliamentary questions on the NSA, according to the Süddeutsche Zeitung.
The Local.de: High court: Snowden must come to Berlin »
Sweden to outlaw… what, exactly?
By HAX on November 21, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Rule of law, self-censorship, Sweden
For years, online hate speech and cyber-bullying have been on the political agenda in Sweden. Now there will be some new laws, covering a wide range of actions and statements.
Let’s have a look at »Insulting behaviour« (PDF, summary in English, page 42-43).
Under the wording we propose, criminal liability will presuppose that someone through accusations, disparaging comments or humiliating behaviour acts against another person in a way that is intended to violate the other person’s selfesteem or dignity.
What does this even mean in real terms? OK, there is an attempt to clarify…
The assessment is to be based on the circumstances in the individual case. However, criminal liability must be determined on the basis of a generally held norm for what represents unacceptable behaviour and what individuals should not be expected to tolerate. This is expressed by the provision stating that the act must have been intended to violate someone’s self-esteem or dignity.
First of all, there seems to be a lot of subjectivity for a law. »Disparaging comments« – isn’t that in the eye of the beholder? »Self-esteem« and »dignity« is something personal, referring to experiences and feelings about a certain situation. It’s very subjective. And »a generally held norm«? Who is to define what that is?
I guess the Supreme Court will have some very difficult decisions to make.
This is sloppy lawmaking in the »safe space« era, where the line between real insults and arguments is blurred. And it gets worse. Page 34, »Our starting points«:
Protection of privacy is also protection of the free formation of opinions and, ultimately, of democracy. There may be a risk that threats against journalists, debaters or opinion-makers result in the person threatened refraining from expressing him- or herself or participating in the public debate.
First of all, take note of the Orwellian twist: To defend free speech, we must limit it.
Second, as one would suspect, it’s not really about teenage bullying in school – but to protect the inner peace and self-image of e.g. journalists and politicians. Suddenly the term »disparaging comments« stands out, in a new light.
So, colorful criticism of politicians might or might not be illegal – on a case by case basis.
Big Brother will be busy.
/ HAX
In defense of Cash
The one benefit of replacing cash with claims on cash is that a claim can be discounted, canceled or seized. That doesn’t sound terribly beneficial to most people, but this attribute is attractive to a growing contingent that wants to send interest rates into negative territory.
Elaine Ou at Bloomberg: The Cashless Society Is a Creepy Fantasy »
Obama ducking the Snowden issue
There may be reasons why the President doesn’t wish to grant a pardon to Snowden, but his stated reasons are completely bogus.
Techdirt: President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He’s Wrong »
Orwell would be horrified
Jim Killock, the executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy. The state has unprecedented powers to monitor and analyse UK citizens’ communications regardless of whether we are suspected of any criminal activity.”
The Guardian: ‘Extreme surveillance’ becomes UK law with barely a whimper »
Trump’s CIA Director: Execute Edward Snowden
By HAX on November 20, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Government, Democracy, Manning, Rule of law, Snowden, US
On the UK Snoopers Charter
By HAX on November 18, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Cryptography, Internet, Police state, Privacy, UK
Britain has passed the ‘most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy’.
The law forces UK internet providers to store browsing histories — including domains visited — for one year, in case of police investigations.
Dutch government leaving us all vulnerable
EDRi: Dutch government wants to keep “zero days” available for exploitation »
The Dutch government is very clear about at least one thing: unknown software vulnerabilities, also known as “zero days”, may be left open by the government, in order to be exploited by secret services and the police.
So, the Dutch government is willing to leave information technology all over the world vulnerable to known dangers – to be able to use them itself?
What could possibly go wrong?
EU cryptic on encryption
The European Union intends to simplify investigative authorities’ access to encrypted content. This emerged from the replies to a questionnaire that was circulated to all Member States by the Slovak Presidency of the EU Council. After a “reflection process”, efforts in this area are, according to the summary of the replies, intended to give rise to a framework for “cooperation” with internet providers. It remains unclear whether this will take the form of a recommendation, regulation or directive or, indeed, what “cooperation” might mean.
EDRi: New EU network to combat the “challenges stemming from encryption” »